Just came across this on Twitter, an article that addresses many of the outstanding questions regarding the pending possible prosecution of Darren Wilson for murder.
Such as:
Could Nixon or St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley remove McCulloch, who has been accused of favoring the police partly because his father was a St. Louis officer killed in the line of duty?
No. Michael Wolff, dean of Saint Louis University Law School, put it this way: “Dooley can call for a special prosecutor all he wants, but there is no legal cause for one unless McCulloch recuses himself and his office.”
Nixon could order Attorney General Chris Koster to provide the prosecutor with “aid,” in any criminal investigation, but McCormick wrote in an email, “It's not clear that the governor has the power to do this without a request by the prosecuting attorney.”
The death of McCulloch’s father does not pose a legal conflict of interest or require him to step aside, lawyers agree.
Seems like only a relentless campaign of pressure from various public officials could cause him to recuse himself, and given his defiant attitude in the face of Jay Nixon's actions, that seems like it may be a very heavy lift.
The article goes on to explain how a prosecutor has a lot of control over a Grand Jury, and how he can present evidence that favors Wilson and tarnishes Brown in order to avoid an indictment.
More below the fold.
Lawrence O'Donnell has had experts Lisa Bloom and Jim Cavanaugh on to review Tiffany Mitchell's testimony on his show, and in the course of the discussion they concluded that a charge of First Degree Murder was in order for Darren Wilson. The St. Louis public radio piece says that is not likely:
If there is a criminal indictment, would it be for murder?
Not first-degree murder. Second-degree murder is possible, but voluntary manslaughter may be more likely.
McCormick said, “Depending on what the evidence shows, it could be second-degree murder -- knowingly causing death. A prosecutor could decide that the definition of voluntary manslaughter is more appropriate -- knowingly causing death under a sudden passion with adequate cause (an assault on the officer).”
The prospects for a conviction with a St. Louis jury are not great, according to the article:
Would a St. Louis County jury be likely to convict?
No. “Asking a jury to convict a cop is really hard in most jurisdictions,” wrote Pitt’s Harris in an email. “To most jurors, cops are the good guys, and the people shot are often (not always) bad guys or not clean.”
In addition, while Ferguson is two-thirds African-American, the jury that would hear the case would come from St. Louis County as a whole, Goldman notes. The county is 70 percent white.
The article addresses other points, such as whether or not we can expect an indictment at all, and whether the video of the robbery (which to my mind is totally irrelevant) would be admissible at trial. On all of these fronts, the outlook, according to this article, is not good. The one are where there is some hope is the question of shooting a fleeing suspect is permissible, and even there, if it can be successfully argued that the suspect posed a danger to the policeman because he had reached for the gun (which still has to be proven), then it may be possible for the defense to argue that the suspect still posed a danger even while fleeing. I think this is patently absurd, but I am just reporting what this article has to say.
Over all, it is not encouraging. RTWT.
The article is by William Freivogel:
William H. Freivogel is director of the School of Journalism at Southern Illinois University Carbondale and a professor at the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute.
Have no idea of his political affiliations.
I know many will not like the picture this article presents. I don't either, and I hope it's not right. But please don't shoot the messenger. Forewarned -- about what a possible prosecution is up against -- is forearmed.